Is this an early Halloween / technical post?

Maybe?

This is Part 13 of the series. It should be part 5; but for the negatively superstitious amongst us I’ve named it part 13. Why? Well I tried to start to go into the whys and wherefores of that; but I just ended up opening up the subjects of religion and superstition, which I don’t want to do right now. – So we’ll just say OK – Part 13 it is.

In Part 1 we tried opening up the Windows Advanced Options pre-boot menu and selecting the option “Last Known Good Configuration (your most recent settings that worked)”

In Part 2 we looked at removing a driver by booting into Safe Mode.

In Part 3 we looked at how corruption could be the cause of the problem, and how to get rid of it using chkdsk and sfc. This can be taken further by using a program by GRC Corp called “SpinRite”: See this article for more information.

In Part 4 we spoke about the awesome power of the Windows Recovery Console and how this might help as a last resort.

- On very rare occasions, though, none of this is accessible: The computer’s BIOS screen appears at or just after power up; and then another black screen with white text appears saying that the CPU was not found, or the RAM isn’t present, or something similar. This has happened to me just the once with an AsRock K7—-VSTA board with DDR RAM which had an AMD Sempron 2.2GHz CPU running on it. Exactly what happened, why did it happen, and what can be done about it?

Exactly what happened? : -

The machine started to crash with a frequent BSOD, which seemed to be for random reasons. I did almost everything suggested in Parts 1 to 3 to try to solve the problem. I didn’t get as far as the Windows Recovery Console, as the machine crashed with another BSOD and refused to start. It started with the usual BIOS screen and then went straight on to a screen telling me that it couldn’t find a processor.. I tried restarting it several times by using the reset button, but the same happened each time.

Why did it happen? : -

When the BIOS starts up it instantly asks all of the fundamental components to declare themselves present and identify themselves. The BIOS knows what basic components should always be present in a computer in order for it to be able to operate; such as a processor, RAM, hard-drive, etc, and it makes request of those components to register their presence and then identify themselves by type and serial number. One of the first components, if not the first component, it looks for to be present is a processor. For some reason the BIOS asked for a processor to identify itself and no reply registered with it. This could be for a number of reasons: -

   1) The processor is fried: It’s dead and can’t respond.

    2) The processor isn’t getting any power; therefore it’s effectively dead and can’t respond.

    3) The processor is alive but isn’t hearing the request from the BIOS because some component between the two is fried, dead, or faulty, and is not allowing communication between the BIOS and processor.

 

    4) The BIOS is faulty and isn’t issuing the request, or isn’t issuing the request properly, to the processor.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    1) Is obviously a hardware fault: The processor has died, and probably so has any number of other components.

Remedy: Replace the processor and the motherboard.

    2) Might be due to a loose power plug, a PSU fault, or a motherboard fault.

Remedy: Diagnose the fault by checking all plugs on wires from the PSU; ensuring that they are all plugged in correctly and are secure. Check the PSU’s outputs (See this article.) and replace the PSU if it’s faulty.

    3) Is a motherboard fault.

Remedy: Replace the motherboard.

    4) Is a BIOS fault or failure.

Remedy: Replace the motherboard.

I checked the power plugs: They were all plugged in securely and tightly. I checked the PSU and it seemed OK. That was all I needed to know. A 32-bit single-cored Sempron CPU wasn’t worth replacing if it was dead, and if I was going to buy a new motherboard I’d have at least a dual-core Athlon 64 x 2 on it. I stripped out the motherboard, CPU, and RAM. (The DDR RAM still worked when I used it in an old PC.) The CPU I gave away marked as possibly faulty. The motherboard was binned and recycled.

I bought a new Gigabyte socket AM2 motherboard with a new Athlon 64 x 2 2.2GHz CPU and 2GB DDR2 667MHz RAM. The rebuilt computer is what I’m writing this post on.

In short, then, Part 13 is the Death Card: It indicates death of old substandard parts; and replacement with new, more functional and better components, bringing rebirth to a computer. (I bet you never thought of the concept of cyber-reincarnation before!?)

Part 13 is unlucky for some: Those who can’t or won’t learn how to rebuild or repair a computer. – But Part 13 is lucky for others – who end up with a similar or identical looking computer which has enhanced performance, having rebuilt it insdie using new companents.

In conclusion, then; if Windows XP crashes during boot and the BIOS says that it can’t find… then basically your box is dead. – But it can be reborn if you’re prepared to spend time and money on it.

Namaste’.

In 2003; AMD introduced the first 64-bit processor targeted at the average consumer, the single-cored Athlon 64, onto the market. Six years later, and now virtually all processors produced at the present moment are 64-bit capable. Also most processors used these days have 2 or more cores, enabling approximately 1.7 times or more of the functionality of a single-cored CPU.

Meanwhile, leaving the minority operating systems, such as Linux, and Mac osX – which only runs well on an Apple computer anyway, aside; between 2001 and almost up to the present day the market leader of operating systems, namely Microsoft Windows, has in reality been fairly stagnant. Despite the release of Windows Vista in January 2007, which in many ways went down like a lead balloon from the offing, most people have been using Windows XP since 2001. (Myself included.(Well, since January 2002 to be exact. – I stayed with Windows 98SE until I managed to afford a new computer. – Things were a bit tighter then.) Back in the days when XP was launched, everyone was using a single-cored processor that was only 32-bit capable. In those days 250 megabytes of RAM was considered a vast amount, a 60GB hard-drive had a massive amount of space on it, the Intel Pentium 4 was the latest cutting-edge CPU, (The new machine I bought in 2002 had a first-generation P4 2.8GHz processor installed.) 32MB graphics were considered the norm, and 64MB were considered leading-edge… Nobody but the extreme-geeks wanted 64-bit operating systems; and therefore most of the XP CDs sold were 32-bit. 32-bit became the norm, became known. It was taught that computers went from 4-bits in the 1960s and 70s, (Commodore Pet) to 8-bits (16-colours!) in the 1980s, to 16-bits (DOS) and then to 32-bits (Windows 95 et al.) in the 1990s. – And from there a general feeling amongst the less-computer-literate that this was the ultimate destiny, that technology had no need to progress further than that. Windows 98SE became replaced by the excuse for an operating system known as Windows ME, and shortly afterwards by Windows 2000, which combined the advances made in ME with the lessons learned from ME: The limited and insecure FAT32 file-system which Microsoft had previously hailed as the way ahead, was falling out of favour, and customers had the choice now of using either FAT32 or the far superior NTFS disk-formats. Not far down the road came XP; which built on the lessons learned from 2000, and XP and 2000 were the in-thing. Many people stuck to using 98SE and ME, in addition to those using 2000 and XP.

Support for 98SE and ME was eventually discontinued; but to this day some die-hards still use those operating systems, despite their now being a massive security-risk both in terms of the user and of the rest of the internet-community as a whole. XP became the principle operating system, even holding out extremely well against the newer Windows Vista, which flopped from launch. – This caused consternation among many of the Microsoft faithful; many of whom switched to Linux and Apple’s Mac in protest.

Despite all this; the remaining Microsoft community – which only shrank in size by a few percent due to defectors to Linux and Mac – stayed in the 32-bit frame of mind. A few took up 64-bit computing with Vista after SP1. Even fewer took up 64-bit computing with XP after SP2 and 3.

Meanwhile; Apples Mac community; its numbers swelled with Vista detractors, was already completely 64-bit. Linux distros appeared utilising the 64-bit potential of modern machines also. Microsoft people either didn’t appear to know or care about 64-bit computing: 32-bit computing appeared good enough so why change? There was and still remains a danger of getting stuck in a rut.

What’s the big deal about 64-bit computing then? Why should I want to use a 64-bit operating system as opposed to a 32-bit operating system?

Let me ask you this: (I know a question in answer to a question may be considered lame; but bear with me here.) Why would you want to use a 32-bit operating system as opposed to a 16-bit operating system? Because 32-bit has more capabilities, right? – Like 32 million colours as opposed to 256 colours…

No I’m not saying that there’s several trillion colours in 64-bit…. Well there may in fact be so; but it’s a bit pointless to use that as a reason to upgrade, as the human eye only sees just over 24 million different colours. The main thing about 64-bit operating systems is that they enable your computer to work with more memory. (RAM) – Vastly more in fact: These days applications are demanding more and more RAM and other system resources to be in use on your computer in order to run them. – But there’s a limit to how much RAM you can use per system. If you’re running a 32-bit operating system you can use up to around 3.5 gigabytes of RAM. In 2001 that must have seemed like a colossal amount of memory. These days 2 gigabytes is standard. – On a computer with a 32-bit operating system that is.

I’m typing this on a computer that I built in December 2008. This computer has 2 GB RAM, an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 dual-core 64-bit capable processor… Yet as with most such computers belonging to most people, it’s currently running a 32-bit XP Professional operating system.

The computer next to it, which I built in April 2009, has 4GB RAM – and today I bought another 4 GB RAM which I intend to fit soon. It has an AMD Phenom triple-cored 64-bit-enabled processor and is currently running Windows 7 RC 64-bit.

My point is that this year a new Windows operating system is going to be launched. – But this is no Vista: This one’s Windows 7. It works almost flawlessly and neither I nor several of my online acquaintances can find anything to complain about with regard to it. – And this is before it’s even been fully released! – OK ‘straight to the point: Which is that 32-bit is so 1990s and 2000s. Next year we’ll be entering the 2010s and, as usual, technology will be moving on at its standard fast-pace.

Windows 7 will be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions. If you have a 64-bit capable computer and buy and/or load 32-bit Windows 7 you won’t be doing yourself any favours. When Windows 95 was released it was possible to run a 16-bit operating system on a 32-bit computer designed to run Windows 95. – Try running one of today’s apps in a 16-bit environment though. It wouldn’t run. Even if it did run; the machines that were around when 16-bit was the in-thing would hardly be capable of running a single app that’s used today. (I tried running XP Home on a computer powered by a Pentium 1 processor. (1996/7 IIRC.) It was 32-bit capable so it ran: Badly and tediously slowly. It took 1/2 hour to boot…)

In a few years your 32-bit operating system won’t be capable of running the applications of the time properly and in multiples, because they’ll need more memory than is able to be utilised by a 32-bit operating system. Remember; a 32-bit operating system can only see about 3.5 gigabytes at one time. A 64-bit operating system can see and use over 16 million terabytes of RAM though. That should be all you need for a few years yet.

Do yourself a favour: When you move up to Windows 7; get a 64-bit version of the operating system (Provided that your system is 64-bit capable.(Most systems built in the last 2 years are 64-bit capable. If unsure ask your retailer or an experienced geek.)) It’s time everyone snapped out of this 32-bit mentality; it’s so yesterday. – It’s like choosing to drive a Reliant Robin in favour of a Porsche.

Let’s all break the mould and go 64-bit. I intend to do so; and it’s in everyone’s best interests to do likewise.

Do you agree?

Not long ago, processor speeds just seemed to get faster and faster. In the last 10 years we’ve seen CPU speeds go up from around 233MHz to over 2.3 GHz: A tenfold increase in just ten years. – But suddenly they stopped getting faster. Why?

There are two combined main reasons: The first being market-forces.

Everybody continually demands more processing power from their processor; therefore chips became faster, as processors that were able to operate at greater speeds were developed; able to process the same amount of data more quickly. Due to a combination of the limited speed of the frequency of operation of the motherboard, plus design constraints that we will look at shortly, there was only so far that this could go. Secondly two brains are better than one. When you’ve gone as high as it’s realistically possible to go; they way to further increase capacity is to build outwards, or duplicate the structure as an annexe of the original.

That’s what chipmakers did: Around 2005; AMD, having developed a commercially-available 64-bit processor, then fabricated it as 2 of those processors on a single die. The Athlon 64 x 2 was born. (The computer I’m writing this article on now has one of these processors.) Intel stapled 2 dual-core dies together in a single package and produced a quad-core processor. At the time of writing 6 and 8-core processors are looming on the horizon.

But they’re still no longer getting any faster. Why?

CPU speed of operation is limited by frequency. Also, when you get up to a certain frequency,  greater heat is produced; regardless of the size of individual transistors: Heat that is generated by the frequency of operation itself to a certain extent. 

Go above a certain amount of gigahertz and you’re getting too close to microwave frequencies. At these extremely high frequencies a combination of things start to happen:

The frequency that individual components, such as the processor and the chipset, communicate with each other at, is around 200MHz: That’s the case with all computers. You may have a 3.2 GHz processor in circuit; but 3.2 GHz is the frequency within the processor itself only. If the processor were to try to communicate with other components at that frequency; the signal would never make it to the other components:

The higher the frequency the smaller the antenna needed to radiate that frequency. That’s the reason why the highest frequencies outside of any chip on the motherboard are limited: If they were any higher, the connective tracks on or between the layers of the motherboard would radiate the power away as radio-waves before it ever reached the next component. If the in-chip frequencies became too high then even the connections inside the chip would act as antennae and the chip itself would cease to function, regardless of the design of the transistors themselves.

Secondly; what happens when you put a dinner into a microwave oven? It cooks, yes?: What’s happening is that the high-frequency microwaves of several gigahertz are bombarding the food and exciting the (water) molecules to vibrate sympathetically, causing them to heat up. (I think the frequency used is around 5 point something gigahertz.)

When you’re talking gigahertz; the higher the frequency (The more gigahertz.) the greater the heat generated. Also the higher the frequency the smaller the components necessary to run at that frequency. Small things tend to burn up quicker than larger things. Go figure. The cost of fabricating a chip small enough to function at higher energy microwave frequencies, as well as the cooling system it would require, doesn’t even bear thinking about: It’s just totally impractical.

So once you’re getting above around 4+GHz frequency you’re starting to fight a losing battle. Logically if you can’t go upwards you go outwards. Think outside the box like AMD did: Add another core operating at an identical frequency on the same die and you theoretically and loosely have twice the frequency without having to have twice the frequency, if you catch my drift?

(In actual fact it’s not quite that simple: The overall performance gain works out at somewhere just above 1.7 times rather than double; but I’m not going to type a load of complex calculus-laden quantum-linear algorithms here to prove a point, even if I could remember them.)

So what of the future? 48-core processors? I think, making a logical guess, that that’s about the theoretical upper-limit using today’s technology: But things can only get better. All of this is talking from the viewpoint of today’s technologies of course: If it were possible to isolate the transmission of gigahertz-frequency waves and amplify and send them by means of a chain of nano-electronic relays over greater distances on an active-conductor, then basically the sky’s the limit as far as the number of processors in a package is concerned; once one accounts for the excessive cooling required for such a device… The mind boggles.

Someone leave a comment on their theoretical predictions based upon factual or theoretically-possible engineering concepts. I’d be fascinated to delve further into the realms of possibility, even from the mind of someone better-informed than myself. I’d love to hear your ideas.

Click Here To Get The Cash
Sucking System ($47 value) for FREE!

In short – Everyone needs them – That includes YOU!

I have seen people using an old computer running Windows ME without any firewall, antivirus, antispyware; totally unpatched. I was so shocked that I commented out loud about having found the local computer virus maternity unit: The owner, who was in the nextdoor room, came scurrying in with a look of puzzlement combined with anger on her face.

This person had been merrily using a totally unprotected computer for years and spreading viruses to all and sundry across the internet for years; totally unaware of any threat to herself or others.

"Oh but I only use it online about an hour a day." She exclaimed.

– How thoughtful of you. NOT!

Some computer users I’ve encountered have no idea what a firewall is. Others have said that they think they don’t need antivirus software because they only have a dialup connection. Still others have antivirus software but didn’t realise that it had to be updated. And yet others even have complained to me that the security bug fix that "Microsoft" emailed to them didn’t do anything but slow their machine down.

The worst instance was a person who had had their machine "upgraded"- Allegedly from a single-core to a dual-core processor, and had supposedly moved from a 32-bit to a 64-bit installation of Windows XP, which they’d paid a sizable amount of money for the privilege of having carried out. On my examination the operating system disk packaging didn’t shed any light on the question of exactly what this person was running, as there was only a clear case with a home-recorded CD inside it. The contents of this CD included a virus that had been rewritten to defeat the Microsoft Genuine Advantage software and reported a legitimate key. It soon became clear that this was an unprotected, non-updated, unpatched pirated copy of Windows Vista, which was being run on a machine that was hardly capable of running it:

The "upgraded" "dual-core" processor was a 2.2GHz AMD Athlon 64 single-core processor and the RAM it was using was still the old DDR rather than DDR2. The motherboard was a rather ancient Asus board made to run the early 1st generation Athlon 64s, which was what it was still doing. The system was riddled with viruses and malware: In fact I was surprised that it was still running. The operating system was totally unprotected and all the software that they were running was pirated also.

Both the cases I’ve written about lived within 15 miles of me, and are just two worst-case examples of the many similar cases I’ve seen that close in proximity to where I live: The possibilities from those statistics frighten me no end. I would estimate that there are nearly a million internet-connected users in England alone who are not using any online protection and whose computers are virus and botnet nurseries.

On the basis of that estimate alone it should be fairly obvious to you why a computer needs protection.

In general I think that most computer users are too lax don’t take security seriously enough.

I am fairly certain that the number of machines that are still unprotected by any kind of firewall is fairly big.

I am fairly certain that the percentage of machines unprotected by any kind of anti-virus and anti-spyware software is quite high: Higher than you’d imagine.

I am fairly certain that the number of people who have anti-virus and anti-virus software installed, but whose databases have never been updated is quite colossal.

I am fairly certain that the percentage of machines that have not once taken any update to Windows or Windows components is probably in the twenties.

I am also fairly certain that there are a number of people who’ll click on links or open attachments from unknown sources without giving it a second thought.

Owning a computer could be likened to owning a car: Both require maintenance, both need attention, both need care when using them. When you drive a car you don’t just get in and drive off taking any route that you fancy. There are do’s and don’ts; there are things you can do and things you shouldn’t do:

For instance if you don’t stick to the roads and drive cross-country you’re likely to end up stuck in a rut or broken down in the middle of nowhere. If you try to drive through tree trunks you’ll end up with a busted car. (I know this: I didn’t try to drive through a tree, but I lost it on a corner and hit one once. In that instance I discovered that evolution fashioned trees in a stronger design than Ford fashioned cars.) If you drive recklessly you’ll end up hurting yourself financially and/or physically. Maybe you’ll end up hurting others too.

The same is true when using a computer: if you don’t bother to maintain it and just "drive" it in any old fashion you’ll get reputation and you’ll end up with a computer that’s slow, faulty, and full of malware. That malware will spread from your computer to other users because that is what it is made to do. If a person doesn’t use anti-virus then their computer will become a virus nursery and infect other computers: That is carelessness and selfishness on their part. likewise with anti-spyware, firewall, etc.

People do exactly that though: they don’t bother, they don’t care. They might not mind having a machine full of malware; but other people don’t want that. As a result, we have botnets, spam, and constant virus and spyware attacks.

My advice to every computer user – Whether they run Windows, Linux, or Mac; but especially if they run Windows, is:

Windows is a targeted operating system; but other operating systems are by no means immune to attack.

Everyone needs education: That includes computer users. What do YOU think?

A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations

Chip manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices; better known as A.M.D, is intending to split into two companies: One of the companies concerned with designing the product, the other concerned with manufacturing them. Two Abu Dhabi investment firms would inject capital into the two companies; financing expansion and upgrading of their existing facilities in Germany.

The move is all to do with A.M.D.’s efforts to ensure that they remain the only serious competition to rival chipmaker Intel. A.M.D. have found it hard going to finance their own expansion in the face of the huge company debt, and therefore have turned to Abu Dhabi for assistance.

The question is, having fallen so far behind, are A.M.D. still really serious contenders in the microprocessor industry? In order to keep up with second place behind Intel the company are forced to turn to a third-party for investment. If they do actually secure that investment then it appears that at least someone still thinks that there’s life in the company and potential to continue to pile on the competition.

In the meantime Intel continues to devise smaller, faster, power-efficient chips at an alarming rate. A.M.D. needs to keep up or Intel will become a monopoly, something like Microsoft was before their two operating system disasters with ME and lately moreso with Vista.

One only needs to turn back the clock a few years to 2004/5, and we see A.M.D. storming ahead of Intel: Intel are chasing improvements to existing technologies and barking up the wrong tree, while A.M.D. are surging ahead producing their renowned Athlon 64 processors, followed by the dual-core Athlon 64×2. (The computer that this article was written on runs one of these processors.)

But oh how the mighty have fallen! Intel bit back and, after stapling two cores together, then producing two cores on a single die as A.M.D. had done earlier, then stapling two of those together as a quad-core processor. Meanwhile A.M.D. were throwing piles of money into what almost turned out to be a failure in the shape of their Phenom range. Beset with difficulties the Phenom range appeared late, and still with one or two issues that were later ironed out by a BIOS adjustment to compensate for a flaw.

Meanwhile Intel had grabbed the bullet and taken the edge by producing multicore technologies with superb power-efficiencies combined with further miniaturisation of transistors to 45nm, with a possibly-attainable target of 22nm on the horizon. A.M.D. were left cashstrapped and behind.

Having now already as-good-as-gained the capital investment that it so badly needs; A.M.D. proposes to play catch-up by at last instigating plans first announced in 2006 to build a massive chip-fabrication plant in New York.

I wish them luck and hope they pull it off. despite opinions to the contrary I sincerely believe that A.M.D.’s chips are by far the better processors. As a small computer builder myself I always incorporate their technology into a machine when I am able.

What do you think? Is it possible for A.M.D. to catch up with Intel and seriously compete with them for the top spot again? If so do you think that their latest move will enable them to do so? Please do comment and share your opinion(s).